[ninepoints]

You're just reiterating the author's point. Not every piece of software written faces dire security ramifications like leaking user identity. Not all software is loading or touching user data at all. Not all software is running in trusted environments. The premise is that Rust may be a good fit if security is a key concern, and even then I would argue it's likely possible to partition the domain into security-sensitive and security-insensitive domains. Cherry picking problem spaces where security matters and making claims about Rust goes against the spirit of the argument.

[saurik]

I would claim the author has an extremely narrow view of where safety matters. Hell: he's even using a pretty safe language (Go) as his alternative! I think the most charitable interpretation I have for the article is that he doesn't actually want to say "I refuse to sacrifice safety for velocity" but "I refuse to sacrifice performance for velocity", which just isn't the same thing.

[foundajob]

Well, no, the prudent choice for someone concerned with "safety" in this context is any high-level memory managed (GC) language. It's any boring language that has no `unsafe` at all. What you're actually saying is "I'm willing to sacrifice safety for performance," as invariably the objection to a high-level GC language by Rustaceans is that it lacks the necessary lolspeed.